Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Robustness of supply chain networks against underload cascading failures

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under a demand shock, a supply chain without recovery collapses in a sudden, discontinuous phase transition.

desk verdict Solid simulation evidence for discontinuous underload cascades in supply chains, but the power-law robustness claim is confounded and the analytic model is a different model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02616 v3 pith:QV64G6ZE submitted 2019-08-06 physics.soc-ph physics.app-ph

Qihui Yang , Caterina Scoglio , Don Gruenbacher This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phphysics.app-ph
keywords cascadingfailureunderloadsupplychainnetworksphasetransitionnetworkrobustnessloadredistributionmean-fieldanalysisrecoverystrategies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that supply chain networks governed by underload failures—nodes go bankrupt when their load falls below a cost threshold—can collapse abruptly under a demand shock. The central finding is that, without recovery measures, the fraction of failed nodes undergoes a discontinuous phase transition as the load-decrease parameter $\delta$ crosses a critical value. The system is far less fragile to load fluctuations, and recovery strategies based on surplus inventory and backup suppliers substantially reduce the final failure fraction. The paper also finds that networks whose lower-bound cost parameter follows a power-law distribution are more robust than those with a uniform distribution, the opposite of the behavior seen in an overload-driven power-grid cascade model. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that demand shocks are a distinct and dangerous failure regime that deserves targeted stress testing.

What carries the argument

The machine is a tiered supply network in which each node has an upper bound $A_i = a L_i(0)$ (inventory) and a lower bound $B_i = b L_i(0)$ (cost), and failure occurs when load falls below $B_i$. Failed-node losses propagate upstream and downstream along weighted business links through the recursion of Eqs. 4–5, after which a recovery phase can reallocate load to surviving and new partners. The analytic result rests on a mean-field equal-load-sharing reduction, adopted from the democratic fiber bundle model: a failed node's load is split equally among all survivors, producing a recursion in the failed fraction $f_t$ whose iteration is governed by $F(x) = \int_x^\infty p(B)\,dB$ and whose fixed-point analysis predicts the discontinuous transition and the dependence on the lower-bound distribution $p(B)$.

What would settle it

Run the same load-decrease cascade on a network with strongly unequal edge weights or sparse connectivity, sweeping $\delta$ in small steps: if the failed fraction $f$ rises continuously rather than jumping at the predicted critical $\delta$, the equal-sharing phase-transition claim is refuted for that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: for an underload cascade model in which a node with load $L_i(t)$ fails whenever $L_i(t) < B_i = b L_i(0)$, a uniform demand shock $L_i'(0) = (1-\delta)L_i(0)$ produces an all-or-nothing collapse when no recovery is allowed. Numerically on synthetic four-tier networks and on a European supply chain network, and analytically in a mean-field equal-load-redistribution model, the final failed fraction $f$ stays near zero until $\delta$ crosses a critical value and then jumps discontinuously; for uniformly distributed $b$ the threshold is set by the upper edge $b_{\max}$ (e.g. $U[0.2,0.7]$ collapses at $\delta \approx 0.3$), while a power-law distribution of $b$ keeps the system intact until $\delta \approx 0.88$. Recovery by reallocating flows among surviving partners or adding new business links removes the abrupt collapse and greatly lowers the plateau of damage, and load fluctuations produce a gradual rise rather than a jump. The paper presents this discontinuity as the signature behavior of underload supply chain cascades, distinct from overload-driven systems.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted discontinuous jump assumes that when a node fails, its entire load is redistributed equally to all surviving nodes, not just to its business partners; if the true cascade spreads losses along weighted links instead, the sharp transition may not appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Without recovery, a small increase in demand shock near the critical $\delta$ converts a mostly intact supply chain into near-total collapse, because the failure transition is discontinuous.
  • Surplus inventory and backup supplier reallocation do more than delay failures: they eliminate the discontinuous jump and cap the failure fraction at a much lower plateau.
  • A supply chain whose entities have heterogeneous power-law cost thresholds absorbs uniform demand shocks far better than one with uniform thresholds, so cost-structure heterogeneity acts as a resilience buffer.
  • Load fluctuations of ordinary size are comparatively harmless; only very large fluctuation amplitudes produce substantial failure fractions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If real loss propagation is more localized than equal sharing, the discontinuity may soften into a gradual decline, so the sharp jump is a testable signature of how evenly a network absorbs shocks.
  • The mean-field reversal relative to overload models implies that resilience metrics built only on capacity headroom may miss the main danger for supply chains, which is demand-side underload.
  • The recovery process assumes entities see the whole system's surplus inventory, so the reported benefit is an upper bound; limited information or coordination costs will shrink but probably not erase the gain.
  • Replacing the uniform shock with a targeted shock to a single tier or node set is a natural next test; the model machinery suggests the critical $\delta$ will depend on the target's position and connectivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an underload-driven cascading failure model for supply chain networks, where each node's load is the sum of material flows and its lower bound is B_i = b L_i(0). It simulates a four-tier synthetic network and a European supply chain instance under demand-shock (uniform load decrease) and load-fluctuation scenarios, with and without a recovery process (reconfiguring flows and building new links). The results show that recovery reduces the final fraction of failed nodes, that load fluctuations cause less severe failures than demand shocks, and that, without recovery, load decrease produces an abrupt (apparently discontinuous) phase transition. A mean-field analysis using an equal-load-sharing (democratic fiber bundle) assumption is solved numerically and compared with simulations of that same equal-load-sharing process. The authors claim that the system is more robust under power-law than uniform distributions of the lower-bound parameter b.

Significance. The paper addresses an understudied direction: cascading failures in supply chains driven by underload rather than overload. If the claims are established, the result that a small demand shock can trigger near-total collapse, whereas load fluctuations are less dangerous, would be a meaningful contribution to supply chain risk analysis and to the physics of cascading failures. The model specification is fairly detailed, simulations are performed on both synthetic and real topologies, and the mean-field calculation is clearly stated. However, the analytic analysis is not connected to the network cascade rule used in the simulations, and the power-law-versus-uniform robustness claim is confounded by unmatched distribution means. These limitations undermine the paper's two central claims as currently presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (7)-(8) and Fig. 6] The analytic results in Section 4 are derived from an explicit equal-load redistribution assumption (Section 4, first paragraph: `when a node fails, the load it carries before the failure will be redistributed equally among all the remaining nodes`). This is not the redistribution rule of the network cascade model in Eqs. (4)-(5), which propagates load losses along the failed node's edges with weights proportional to the previous flows. The paper never shows that the network model approaches equal-load sharing in any limit, and Fig. 6 compares Eq. (7) only with simulations of the same equal-load redistribution process, not with the network cascade simulations of Section 3. Consequently, the claim that the discontinuous phase transition is found `numerically and analytically` for the supply chain model is not supported by the analytic part; the analytic contribution concerns a distinct idealized model. I recommend either demonstrating that the network redistribution converges to equal-load sharing under some conditions, or explicitly presenting the mean-field model as a stylized analogy and providing additional diagnostics that connect it to the network simulations, such as measuring the effective load loss experienced by survivors in the network model.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.1, Figs. 2(a)-(d), and Sec. 5] The claim that the system is `more robust for power-law distributions than uniform distributions of the lower bound parameter` is confounded by the different supports and means of the distributions. The power-law p(b) ∝ b^{-2} on [0.02,1] has mean ∫ b p(b) db ≈ 0.08, while the uniform cases U[0,0.7], U[0.2,0.7], and U[0,0.5] have means 0.35, 0.45, and 0.25, respectively. Since a node fails when its decreased load falls below B_i = b L_i(0), a distribution that concentrates most mass near small b is trivially more tolerant of demand shocks. The reported critical values are consistent with this interpretation: the power-law case collapses around δ ≈ 0.88, which is close to what a uniform distribution with a matched mean near 0.08 would give (roughly δ ≈ 0.84). To establish a distribution-shape effect, the authors should compare the power-law with a uniform distribution that has the same first moment (for example, U[0, 0.16]) or at least the same median. If the matched-moment uniform collapses at a similar threshold, the stated conclusion should be withdrawn or substantially qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.2] The downstream load propagation is described only in words following Eqs. (4)-(5); for full reproducibility, the explicit downstream update equations should be written out, analogous to the upstream equations.
  2. [Figs. 2, 3, and 5] The results are averaged over 100 realizations, but no error bars or standard deviations are shown; adding them would help the reader judge the sharpness of the phase transition and the statistical significance of differences between recovery scenarios.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The index of the product in Eq. (8) is potentially confusing: the product runs from t=1 to t, using f_0 and f_1, but the same symbol t denotes both the upper limit and the running index; please clarify the indexing.
  4. [Sec. 3.1.1, Fig. 2(d)] The power-law exponent γ=2 is not justified; a brief explanation of why this particular exponent was chosen would strengthen the parametrization.
  5. [Sec. 4, final paragraph] There is a grammatical error: `This is contrary of the mean-field result` should be `This is contrary to the mean-field result`.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found; the mean-field derivation is self-contained and independent of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—a discontinuous phase transition under load decrease without recovery, and greater robustness for power-law than uniform lower-bound distributions—are supported by explicit network simulations and by a separate mean-field model. The mean-field equations (7)-(8) are derived from a stated equal-load-redistribution assumption borrowed from the democratic fiber bundle model, not from fitting parameters to the network cascade in Eqs (4)-(5). Figure 6 compares the analytic solution of that equal-load-sharing process with simulations of the same process; this is an internal consistency check, not a prediction forced by construction. The comparison between power-law and uniform b distributions uses specified supports, and whether those supports are matched is a confounding/validity concern, not circularity. Self-citations such as Pahwa et al. [9] and Yang et al. [12] are used for background or contrast, not as the load-bearing justification for the paper's phase-transition result. External anchors (the European supply chain network [1] and Daniels' fiber bundle model [33]) provide independent support. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on hand-chosen parameters (a, b distributions, θ) and on several modeling simplifications, especially the equal-loss-sharing mean-field approximation and the specific threshold distributions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • a: upper bound parameter = a = 2 for load fluctuation; a > 1 generally
    Sets inventory capacity relative to initial load; chosen by hand, not fitted to data; if a is too small, load fluctuations exceed capacity and change failure conditions.
  • b: lower bound distribution parameters = Uniform: U[0,0.7], U[0.2,0.7], U[0,0.5], U[0,0.9]; Power-law: p(b) ∝ b^-2, b∈[0.02,1]
    Cost threshold relative to initial load; chosen by hand; the power-law and uniform cases have different supports, confounding the robustness comparison.
  • θ: edge weight exponent = 0.5
    Taken from references [22,23] to define business relationship strengths; not fitted in this paper; affects load propagation.
  • Network generation parameters = N=400, p=0.1, 100 realizations, δ step 0.02
    Synthetic network and simulation settings; arbitrary but standard; results may depend on these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Node load is the total material flow, and incoming flows equal outgoing flows for each node (Sec 2.1).
    Defines the supply chain abstraction; if inventory can accumulate, underload dynamics differ.
  • domain assumption Upper and lower bound loads are proportional to initial load: A_i = a L_i(0), B_i = b L_i(0) with a>1, 0<b<1 (Sec 2.1).
    Makes thresholds relative to initial load; enables the simple failure rule.
  • domain assumption When a node fails, it cannot receive or ship, and the lost load propagates to neighbors in proportion to edge weights (Eqs 4-5).
    Core cascade mechanism; different redistribution rules would change the transition.
  • domain assumption In the mean-field model, a failed node's load is shared equally among surviving nodes (Sec 4).
    Borrowed from democratic fiber bundle; not derived from the network model, so analytic results are for a stylized process.
  • domain assumption Lower bound parameter b follows a uniform or power-law distribution (Sec 3.1).
    Determines the phase transition; the comparison is scenario-specific and uses different supports.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustness of supply chain networks against underload cascading failures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QV64G6ZE

@misc{pith2026190802616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustness of supply chain networks against underload cascading failures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QV64G6ZE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02616}
}
read the original abstract

In today's global economy, supply chain (SC) entities have become increasingly interconnected with demand and supply relationships due to the need for strategic outsourcing. Such interdependence among firms not only increases efficiency but also creates more vulnerabilities in the system. Natural and human-made disasters such as floods and transport accidents may halt operations and lead to economic losses. Due to the interdependence among firms, the adverse effects of any disruption can be amplified and spread throughout the systems. This paper aims at studying the robustness of SC networks against cascading failures. Considering the upper and lower bound load constraints, i.e., inventory and cost, we examine the fraction of failed entities under load decrease and load fluctuation scenarios. The simulation results obtained from synthetic networks and a European supply chain network [1] both confirm that the recovery strategies of surplus inventory and backup suppliers often adopted in actual SCs can enhance the system robustness, compared with the system without the recovery process. In addition, the system is relatively robust against load fluctuations but is more fragile to demand shocks. For the underload-driven model without the recovery process, we found an occurrence of a discontinuous phase transition. Differently from other systems studied under overload cascading failures, this system is more robust for power-law distributions than uniform distributions of the lower bound parameter for the studied scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cardoso, A

    S.R. Cardoso, A. Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, S. Relvas, A.Q. Novais, Resilience metrics in the assessment of complex supply-chains performance operating under demand uncertainty, Omega. 56 (2015) 53 –

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Y. Koç, M. Warnier, P. Van Mieghem, R.E. Kooij, F.M.T. Brazier, A topological investigation of phase transiti ons of cascading failures in power grids, Physica A 415 (2014) 273 –284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.07.083

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2014.07.083 2014

  3. [3]

    Y. Koç, M. Warnier, P.V. Mieghem, R.E. Kooij, F.M.T. Brazier, The impact of the topology on cascading failures in a power grid model, Physica A 402 (2014) 169 –179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.01.056

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2014.01.056 2014

  4. [4]

    Y. Hou, X. Xing, M. Li, A. Zeng, Y. Wang, Overload cascading failure on complex networks with heterogeneous load redistribution, Physica A 481 (2017) 160 –166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.04.039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2017.04.039 2017

  5. [5]

    F. Xue, E. Bompard, T. Huang, L. Jiang, S. Lu, H. Zhu, Interrelation of structure and operational states in cascading failure of overloading lines in power grids, Physica A 482 (2017) 728 –740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.04.061

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2017.04.061 2017

  6. [6]

    J.J. Wu, H.J. Sun, Z.Y. Gao, Cascading failures on weighted urban traffic equilibrium networks, Physica A 386 (2007) 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2007.08.034. 15

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2007.08.034 2007

  7. [7]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Lu, B. Fu, S. Li, A cascading failures model of weighted bus transit route network under route failure perspective considering link prediction effect, Physica A 523 (2019) 1315 –1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.04.122

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2019.04.122 2019

  8. [8]

    Pahwa, A

    S. Pahwa, A. Hodges, C. Scoglio, S. Wood, Topological analysis of the power grid and mitigation strategies against cascading failures, in: 2010 IEEE Int. Syst. Conf., 2010: pp. 272 –276. https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSTEMS.2010.5482329

    work page arXiv 2010

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Pahwa, C

    S. Pahwa, C. Scoglio, A. Scala, Abruptness of Cascade Failures in Power Grids, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014 )

    2014

  2. [10]

    Buldyrev, R

    S.V. Buldyrev, R. Parshani, G. Paul, H.E. Stanley, S. Havlin, Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks, Nature. 464 (2010) 1025–1028. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08932

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    X. Li, H. Wu, C. Scoglio, D. Gruenbacher, Robust allocation of weighted dependency links in cyber– physical networks, Physica A 433 (2015) 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2015.04.006

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Q. Yang, D. Gruenbacher, J.L. Heier Stamm, G.L. Brase, S.A. DeLoach, D.E . Amrine, C. Scoglio, Developing an agent -based model to simulate the beef cattle production and transportation in southwest Kansas, Physica A 526 (2019) 120856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.04.092

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Zhong, F

    J. Zhong, F. Zhang, S. Yang, D. Li, Restoration of interdependent network against cascading overload failure, Physica A 514 (2019) 884–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.09.130

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Z. Zhao, P. Zhang, H. Yang, Cascading failures in interconnected networks with dynamical redistribution of loads, Physica A 433 (2015) 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2015.03.030

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Bode, S.M

    C. Bode, S.M. Wagner, Structural drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of supply chain disruptions, J. Oper. Manag. 36 (2015) 215 –228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.12.004

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Ivanov, B

    D. Ivanov, B. Sokolov, A. Dolgui, The Ripple effect in supply chains: trade-off ‘efficiency-flexibility- resilience’ in disruption management, Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (2014) 2154 –2172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.858836

    2014

  9. [17]

    Reyes Levalle, S.Y

    R. Reyes Levalle, S.Y. Nof, Resilience by teaming in supply network formation and re-configuration, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 160 (2015) 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.036

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Hosseini, N

    S. Hosseini, N. Morshedlou, D. Ivanov, M.D. Sarder, K. Barker, A.A. Khaled, Resilient supplier selection and optimal order allocation under disruption risks, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 213 (2019) 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.03.018

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Canis, Motor Vehicle Supply Chain: Effects of the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami, DIANE Publishing, 2011

    B. Canis, Motor Vehicle Supply Chain: Effects of the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami, DIANE Publishing, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Y. Zeng, R. Xiao, Modelling of cluster supply network with cascading failure spread and its vulnerability analysis, Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (2014) 6938 –6953. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.917769

    2014

  13. [21]

    L. Tang, K. Jing, J. He, H.E. Stanley, Complex interdependent supply chain networks: Cascading failure and robustness, Physica A 443 (2016) 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2015.09.082

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Y. Wang, R. Xiao, An ant colony based resilience approach to cascading failures in cluster supply network, Physica A 462 (2016) 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.06.058

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Y. Wang, F. Z hang, Modeling and analysis of under -load-based cascading failures in supply chain networks, Nonlinear Dyn. 92 (2018) 1403–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-018-4135-z. 16

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    L. Tang, K. Jing, J. He, H.E. Stanley, Robustness of assembly supply chain networks by considering risk propagation and cascading failure, Physica A 459 (2016) 129 –139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.04.030

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Drzymalski, N.G

    J. Drzymalski, N.G. Odrey, G.R. Wilson, Aggregating performance measures of a multi -echelon supply chain using the analytical network and analytical hierarchy process, Int. J. Serv. Econ. Manag. 2 (2010) 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSEM.2010.033368

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ivanov, B

    D. Ivanov, B. Sokolov, J. Kaeschel, A multi-structural framework for adaptive supply chain planning and operations control with structure dynamics considerations, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200 (2010) 409 –

    2010

  19. [27]

    H. Fang, D. Jiang, T. Yang, L. Fang, J. Yang, W. Li, J. Zhao, Network evolution model for supply chain with manufact ures as the core, PLOS ONE. 13 (2018) e0191180. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191180

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Zapperi, P

    S. Zapperi, P. Ray, H.E. Stanley, A. Vespignani, First -Order Transition in the Breakdown of Disordered Media, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 1408 –1411. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.1408

    1997 doi

  21. [29]

    Zhang, O

    Y. Zhang, O. Yağan, Optimizing the robustness of electrical power systems against cascading failures, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 27625. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27625

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Hernández, C

    J.M. Hernández, C. Pedroza-Gutiérrez, Estimating the influence of the network topology on the agility of food supply chains, PLOS ONE. 14 (2019) e0218958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218958

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Yağan, Robustness of power systems under a democratic -fiber-bundle-like model, Phys

    O. Yağan, Robustness of power systems under a democratic -fiber-bundle-like model, Phys. Rev. E. 91 (2015) 062811. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.91.062811

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Scala, P.G

    A. Scala, P.G. De Sanctis Lucentini, The equal load-sharing model of cascade failures in power grids, Physica A 462 (2016) 737–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.06.034

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Daniels, The statistical theory of the strength of bundles of threads

    H.E. Daniels, The statistical theory of the strength of bundles of threads. I, Proc. R. Soc. London A. 183 (1945) 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1945.0011

    1945

  26. [73]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.03.008

    2015 doi

  27. [420]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.002

    2009 doi

  28. [3694]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03694

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.